Streamlining Acute Stroke Processes and Data Collection: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute ischemic stroke treatment has been thoroughly studied to identify strategies to reduce treatment times. However, many centers still do not meet the benchmark time metrics. Additionally, smaller centers often face longer treatment times, yet studies focus primarily on larger, more advanced centers. Objectives: The aim of this study is to analyze existing literature to understand the strategies implemented in primary and comprehensive stroke centers to reduce their treatment times, and categorize the studies based on methods used to improve their processes Results: Three main categories of improvements were identified in the literature: 1) standardization of processes, 2) resource management, and 3) data collection. Both primary and comprehensive stroke centers were able to reduce treatment times through standardization of processes. However, challenges such as variations in resources between hospitals and difficulties in integrating data collection software into workflow were highlighted. Additionally, many strategies to optimize resource management and data collection were conducted in comprehensive stroke centers, which can benefit primary stroke centers. Conclusions: Many existing strategies to improve treatment times are viable for both primary and comprehensive stroke centers. However, while data collection is recognized as crucial for process improvement, challenges persist in integrating data collection methods into clinical workflow. Proposed solutions include the development of easy-to-use software tailored to clinician needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".